Try again <sigh> Monks and Improve Natural Attack

[No Name]

Heh.

Starting from page 6, it's difficult to tell who is arguing for which side.

Btw, I'd like to know the causes for these effects.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I'm with WotC on this one.

So, "yes".

 

[Plane Sailing]

WOTC endorses Improved Natural Attack for the Monk with non-core products and the FAQ and CustServ, and that the intent of the rules was likely that all along.

I think if that was the intent of the rules all along, the INA feat would have been in the PHB and not the MM.

It might be that that they now think it is OK, but the original intention seems to be quite clearly that it was a feat for monsters, just based on the placement of it.

 

[Legildur]

I think if that was the intent of the rules all along, the INA feat would have been in the PHB and not the MM.

It might be that that they now think it is OK, but the original intention seems to be quite clearly that it was a feat for monsters, just based on the placement of it.

I agree with Plane Sailing, but withheld posting that (should be in PHB) again as the whole argument cannot be satisfactorily resolved barring errata of the PHB and/or MM.

 

[KarinsDad]

Keeping it core was quite fair, given there is so much non-core WOTC stuff that proves the point you happen to disagree with. SRD doesn't mean core, and never did. So, why did you bring up Psionics in a debate where you already agreed to stick to core, unless it was to be a moving target?

I never agreed to any such thing. I do think that WotC later on made the decision to allow INA for Monks in non-core. That doesn't change how it is written for core.

And anyone who opines that WotC made the core rules up in order to keep them strictly core is creating a straw man.

Additionally, I noticed you cut off the rest of my post which did discuss core. Hmmm. That too is straw man debating.

 

[KarinsDad]

WOTC endorses Improved Natural Attack for the Monk with non-core products and the FAQ and CustServ, and that the intent of the rules was likely that all along.

I suspect that you will find it difficult to support this claim. Not only is INA not in the PHB, but the Monster Manual itself indicates an intent to limit Monster Feats to Monsters (with the typical caveat to allow it elsewhere if WotC forgot something):

DMG page 303

This chapter provides descriptions of one skill, Control Shape, and a number of feats that are typically used only by monsters.

To support this POV that it was not WotC's intent to allow PCs to have Monster Feats, you'll note that many monk examples in later products like PHB II start putting INA on monks as almost a given (and many players do this as well).

However, the Monk sample NPCs in the DMG do not have this. This means that if it were WotC original intent to give INA to Monks, they sure as heck did not even come up with the idea until much later on. Not only that, but none of the NPC sample characters in the DMG have any Monster Feats listed.

The evidence points to the exact opposite conclusion of yours for what original 3.5 core WotC intent probably was with regard to Monster feats.

 

[Zimri]

Well here is my first reply from custserv. Long and short of it is that WOTC thinks all it's players have bodies that are not natural and are damaging each other with things that are not weapons.

Hi there Edward,

Having a limb or a mouth does not mean you can use it as a natural weapon.

Humanoids do not have a natural attack at all unless its creature entry says it does. However, a humanoid can use his body for a single unarmed strike. This is not a natural weapon. An unarmed strike can be represented by either a fist, or a knee, or a kick, or an elbow, or a headbutt, etc.

The game does not recognize the fact that in real-life people can flail about wildly 10 times in six seconds. For simplicity's sake, all that effort amounts to making a single attack roll in the game.

Normal humanoids without natural attacks cannot choose the Improved Natural Attack feat at all.

Monks however can benefit from Improved Natural Attack because their improved unarmed strike counts as both a manufactured and a natural weapon for effects that enhance or improve natural or manufactured weapons. This is covered in the D&D v.3.5 FAQ.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a

Now tell all your friends: No Fighting, No Biting.



Take Care and Good Gaming!

So a tigeress clawing me is a natural attack but my significant other with her inch long nails hardened and filed down to points clawing me isn't. interesting.

 

[Artoomis]

I've already stated my opinion of this several times in this and other threads.

An effect is an external influence to a given creature, object, or other effect. I base this definition off of the standard usage of the word effect found throughout the rules.

There appears to be three basic game elements: creatures (and their properties), objects (and their properties), and effects (and their properties: magical or mundane). Virtually every thing in the game appears to fall into one of these 3 categories....

Not a bad analysis, in general, but where is the strict from-the rules-text-only backup for this? It does not exist. (I told you this would get "interesting ) I think when you look deeper it becomes clear that the rules don't always distinguish between a "thing" and its "effects."

For example:

Keen Edge...

Multiple effects that increase a weapon’s threat range (such as the keen edge spell and the Improved Critical feat) don’t stack.

Note the lack of distinction between a spell, a feat and their effects.

What reason do we have to be certain that when "effects" is referred to in the monk class description they actually mean "effects" seperate from that which caused the effect?

Why can we not assume they meant it in the same sense it was used in the "Keen Edge" spell where it was used in the most general sense to be inclusive of that which caused the effect?

How can you be 100% certain that the latter is not the correct meaning here?

 

[Artoomis]

...Btw, I'd like to know the causes for these effects.

That was a joke, of course, but it raises the point I just discussed above - WotC does not always seperate the cause fom the effect, so sometimes they say "effects" when what they really mean is the cause of the effect.

That's to me is the real reason why we should treat "effect" in the monk's class as meaning both cause AND effect, which is why monk's may take INA per core rules only.

To me what they wrote should be read as "...spells and other effects..." I think that's the way they meant it.

 

[Deset Gled]

That's to me is the real reason why we should treat "effect" in the monk's class as meaning both cause AND effect, which is why monk's may take INA per core rules only.

This is exactly the jump of logic that I refuse to make. You're saying that by "effect", they didn't really mean "effect". I maintain that they said "effect", and that regardless of what they meant, that's all they said. And an effect is not a cause, no matter how you decide to define an effect (in the same way that a sword is not a sheath, a solution is not a problem, and caterpillar is not a butterfly).

You may say that I'm being too precise with the language used in the rules, but I don't think that reading them so loosly that you could fit a Mack truck through is a feasible alternative.